Louisianans have a chance to prevent innocent people from being executed on death row. At least 190 innocent people have been exonerated from death row nationwide and 12 in Louisiana alone. There are currently 57 defendants on Louisiana’s death row, including Innocence Project client Jimmie “Chris” Duncan, who has maintained his innocence in the 1993 death of his girlfriend’s baby.

Gov. John Bel Edwards, who opposes the death penalty, has the authority to grant clemency to everyone on Louisiana’s death row. Attorneys for 55 of these defendants have requested modified sentences of life without parole. To avoid further injustice, residents of Louisiana must urge the Louisiana Parole Board to hold clemency hearings now and recommend clemency to the Governor so that the Governor can commute death sentences to life in prison before he leaves office in January 2024.

Here are key insights into Louisiana’s death row:

1. Twelve people have been exonerated from Louisiana’s death row. 

Since 1973, 12 innocent individuals have been exonerated from Louisiana’s death row, including Ryan Matthews and Damon Thibodeaux, whose death sentences were overturned by DNA evidence with the help of the Innocence Project. These are 12 lives that could have been unjustly taken by the state. Every exoneration shines a light on the flaws inherent in the system, and the pressing need for a reevaluation of the sentences of those on death row. We’ll never know how many of the 28 people executed in the state’s history were innocent.

2. Louisiana has a startling ratio of getting it wrong — for every seven executions, three innocent people have been exonerated. 

For every seven executions carried out in Louisiana since 1972, three innocent people have been exonerated. The irreversible nature of the death penalty leaves no room for error. Yet, this statistic reveals a dangerous margin of potential mistake. Gov. Edwards should commute the death sentences of people on death row to prevent further injustices.

3. Ninety-five percent of Louisiana death sentences have been reversed. 

An astounding 95% of Louisiana death sentences have been reversed since 1999, according to the Capital Appeals Project. Such a high percentage of reversals shows systemic flaws and indicates that many of the original sentences should not have been death sentences in the first place.

4. Innocence Project client Jimmie “Chris” Duncan, who was convicted based on discredited bite mark evidence, has maintained his innocence on Louisiana’s death row since 1993.

In 1993, Mr. Duncan was bathing his girlfriend’s daughter when he stepped away briefly and returned to find the 23-month-old unconscious. He tried to perform CPR, took her to a neighbor’s house for help, and called the paramedics. But they were unable to resuscitate her. An autopsy conducted by now disgraced pathologist Steve Hayne and dentist Michael West supposedly determined that the toddler had been sexually abused and Mr. Duncan had bitten her. In 1998, Mr. Duncan was sentenced to death, but has always maintained his innocence. 

In late 2022, Innocence Project attorneys joined pro bono counsel for Mr. Duncan in filing a motion to overturn his conviction based on the discredited forensics used against him. In 1994, Dr. West became the first member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology ever to be suspended from the organization. And Mississippi, where Dr. Hayne was the de facto medical examiner, cut ties with Dr. Hayne after the Innocence Project conducted an investigation into his flawed forensic practices. Nearly a quarter of people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence, such as bite marks. If the governor acts, Mr. Duncan would be removed from death row. 

5. The last execution occurred in 2010. 

While not officially halting the death penalty, Louisiana carried out its last contested execution in 2002, more than two decades ago, and the state only executed once more in 2010, when a person on death row dropped all appeals. This suggests a societal and systemic shift away from the death penalty, emphasizing the need to reconsider its continued use.

6. Seventy-four percent of individuals on Louisiana’s death row are people of color.

A striking 74% of individuals on Louisiana’s death row right now are people of color, with 67% of them who are Black. Additionally, nine of Louisiana’s 12 death row exonerees are Black. And of the nine people exonerated since 1999, seven were wrongly convicted of killing white victims.

These exonerations highlight the racial dynamics of Louisiana’s death penalty, in which Black defendants and crimes involving white victims are overrepresented.

7. No white person has been executed in Louisiana for a murder of a Black victim since 1752.

There’s a glaring disparity in sentencing. Death sentences are six times more likely when the victim is white than when they are Black. Such a distinction points to deep-seated racial biases within the system. No white person has been executed in Louisiana for a murder against a Black victim since 1752. This stark fact emphasizes the systemic inequalities that have been perpetuated for centuries.

8. Louisianans can speak out to urge Gov. Edwards to commute death row sentences before he leaves office in January 2024. 

This Wrongful Conviction Day (Oct. 2), Innocence Project New Orleans is hosting a rally at the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court urging justice for all defendants on death row. If you’re in the area, you should attend. Sign this petition to show your support against executing people on death row and share it with others who live in Louisiana. 

Right now, Louisiana has a historic opportunity to rectify potential miscarriages of justice. The clock is ticking, and the power of the community can play a decisive role.

This post was written in collaboration with the Innocence Project New Orleans.

3. Mr. Mack chanted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic phrase, “Free at last, thank God Almighty, I’m free at last,” while walking out of the courthouse toward Dr. King’s statue.

Mr. Mack is a devout Christian, and his voice rings with power and purpose. He danced out of the courthouse doors rejoicing his freedom and reciting the iconic Dr. King phrase in front of the towering memorial of the civil rights leader.   

4. Mr. Mack celebrated his 72nd birthday on the day of his exoneration.

“Today is my birthday; I couldn’t think of a better gift,” said Mr. Mack. Following the hearing, the Innocence Project team celebrated his 72nd birthday with a cake and a room filled with balloons.

5. Mr. Mack reunited with the Innocence Project case analyst who reviewed his case in 2019.

Gabriel Lopez, the senior case analyst who read Mr. Mack’s letter requesting the Innocence Project’s help, was able to attend the exoneration in a full circle moment.

“I read his letter in 2019,” said Mr. Lopez, while standing arm and arm with Mr. Mack. “After a deep analysis and report, I presented the case to the Innocence Project’s legal team and they amazingly took the case on. I am so honored to be a part of your journey, Mr. Mack.”

6. Mr. Mack concluded his day with a celebratory steak dinner.

With his legal and social work team and wife by his side, Mr. Mack enjoyed one of his favorite meals: steak. 

(August 24 – Jefferson City, MO) Marcellus Williams, who faces execution in Missouri despite DNA evidence proving his innocence, has filed a civil lawsuit against Gov. Mike Parson for dissolving the board of inquiry that had been investigating his innocence claim before it could produce a report and recommendation, and against Attorney General Andrew Bailey for moving to set an execution date after the governor had illegally dissolved the board. The suit, filed in Missouri’s 19th Circuit Court, asks the court to invalidate Gov. Parson’s June 30 executive order dissolving the board and lifting Mr. Williams’ stay of execution, arguing that the governor violated Mr. Williams’ rights and the law when he dissolved the board without a report and recommendation. 

In an unprecedented move earlier this summer, Gov. Parson rescinded an executive order issued by his predecessor, effectively lifting Mr. Williams’ stay of execution and terminating a board of five former judges appointed by previous Gov. Eric Greitens to examine the new DNA evidence — which no court has ever reviewed. Gov. Greitens issued the executive order pursuant to Missouri Revised Statutes section 552.070, a law passed in 1963 designed to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed. The statute permits the governor to empanel a board of inquiry to review evidence of innocence in a death penalty case, an action taken only three times by Missouri governors since its passage. Gov. Greitens’ 2017 executive order required the board to provide him with a report and recommendation about Mr. Williams’ claims of innocence and application for clemency. The lawsuit alleges that Gov. Parsons never received such a report or recommendation from the board before he dissolved it.

“The dissolution of the board of inquiry before a report or recommendation could be issued means that, to date, no judge has ruled on the full evidence of Mr. William’s innocence,” said Tricia Rojo Bushnell, executive director of the Midwest Innocence Project, which represents Mr. Williams. “Knowing that, the state of Missouri still seeks to execute him. That is not justice.”

“The board of inquiry statute was created so that an independent group of retired judges had an opportunity to review all the evidence in a death penalty case, without any procedural or political obstructions, to make sure an innocent man or woman is not executed. It’s a unique, fail-safe protection. By aborting the process before this distinguished group of jurists issued a report, Gov. Parson violated Mr. Williams’ due process rights under the state and federal constitutions to life and liberty,” said Barry C. Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project. 

When Norberto Peets walked into the fresh air on Sept. 30, 2022, he felt relief, but also fear.

His conviction for a 1996 shooting involving the NYPD in the Bronx had just been overturned, paving the way for his release, but his fate was uncertain. The possibility of a re-trial and being sent back to prison — a place he never should have been in the first place — still loomed over him.

Mr. Peets was 26 years old when he was wrongly arrested for a 1996 shooting in the Bronx in which the shooter had been struck by a bullet during a gunfire exchange with police. Though Mr. Peets did not have a gunshot wound anywhere on his body and had a strong alibi, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.

By the time he was released in 2022, Mr. Peets had lost half his life to wrongful incarceration and missed out on seeing his children, Carlos and Johanil, who were 5 and 2 respectively at the time of his arrest, grow up. Upon his release, he moved back home with his mother in the Bronx and reunited with friends and his remaining family — though many of his family members had passed away during his long incarceration.

In those first few weeks, Mr. Peets walked around his old neighborhood, where his mother still lives, relishing the fact that there was no nightly “count” or guards in uniforms at every turn. Yet he couldn’t shake the feeling that one wrong move or even just being in the wrong place at the wrong time could send him back to prison.

Oddly, the one place Mr. Peets felt normal — almost free — in the outside world was the same place he had felt free while in prison: the basketball court.

“In Sing Sing Prison, I played basketball all day, and it helped me stay in good shape, but, in that moment when I was playing basketball, it took a lot of stress away from me,” Mr. Peets explained. “That was the only time I felt like I was a little free and not so in my mind about all the stuff I was dealing with.”

Mr. Peets said some of his earliest memories are learning to play basketball with his father on the court near his father’s home in the Dominican Republic, where Mr. Peets grew up. Later, he passed on the lesson to his younger brother Kendall Beltre, coaching him in both basketball and baseball. Shortly after Mr. Peets’ release, he and Mr. Beltre reunited on the court.

“I felt the joy,” said Mr. Beltre. “I felt like I went back to when I was 14 years old [before Mr. Peets was arrested]. I went back to a feeling of being so happy, like I was a big kid, you know? Like wow my big brother’s out here, I almost couldn’t believe it.”

Mr. Beltre had dreams of playing Major League Baseball as a teen and was on track for a professional career, but the devastation and pain of Mr. Peets’ wrongful incarceration weighed on him. Without his brother, whom he described as his “biggest supporter,” he lost the motivation and passion to keep up his dream. But Mr. Beltre never lost hope that his brother would one day be proven innocent and be freed.

Finally Exonerated

That day finally came on May 9, 2023, when Mr. Peets’ case was dismissed and sealed in Bronx County Supreme Court, officially exonerating him. Mr. Peets’ daughter Johanil was there to celebrate the occasion.

“I cannot get that time back, I’ll never be 26 again, I never got to make those memories with my kids,” Mr. Peets said. “But I always had hope because I knew I was innocent, that I was not there that night. So I always knew I was going home in my heart.”

Immediately after his exoneration, Mr. Peets shared sandwiches with his daughter and legal team, in the nearby Joyce Kilmer Park, which overlooks the Bronx courthouse where Mr. Peets’ was arraigned. And though he was overjoyed, it wasn’t until days later that “it hit me really good,” he said.

“A couple days after my case was dismissed, I was walking and suddenly felt like the trees looked different and the sun looked different. I had this feeling like, ‘Wow, why does everything look different today?’” he recalled. “And it was because I didn’t have this fear in my head anymore.”

Now Mr. Peets is ready for his next chapter: a new home, the first he’ll be living in without a family member or a partner. After 26 years of wrongful incarceration, he said he can’t wait to have a space to call his own.

“I feel so relaxed, like a totally new person and I can do whatever I want to,” he told the Innocence Project on his way to have paella with his daughter in Manhattan. Mr. Peets waited almost 27 years to enjoy this simple pleasure — the pleasure of being free to go where he wants when he wants.

 “I’m still feeling excited every day, I’m at the gym, I’m dancing, I’m a happy guy. I’m finally feeling like I’m myself again, little by little,” he said.

When Norberto Peets walked into the fresh air on Sept. 30, 2022, he felt relief, but also fear.

His conviction for a 1996 shooting involving the NYPD in the Bronx had just been overturned, paving the way for his release, but his fate was uncertain. The possibility of a re-trial and being sent back to prison — a place he never should have been in the first place — still loomed over him.

Mr. Peets was 26 years old when he was wrongly arrested for a 1996 shooting in the Bronx in which the shooter had been struck by a bullet during a gunfire exchange with police. Though Mr. Peets did not have a gunshot wound anywhere on his body and had a strong alibi, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.

By the time he was released in 2022, Mr. Peets had lost half his life to wrongful incarceration and missed out on seeing his children, Carlos and Johanil, who were 5 and 2 respectively at the time of his arrest, grow up. Upon his release, he moved back home with his mother in the Bronx and reunited with friends and his remaining family — though many of his family members had passed away during his long incarceration.

In those first few weeks, Mr. Peets walked around his old neighborhood, where his mother still lives, relishing the fact that there was no nightly “count” or guards in uniforms at every turn. Yet he couldn’t shake the feeling that one wrong move or even just being in the wrong place at the wrong time could send him back to prison.

Oddly, the one place Mr. Peets felt normal — almost free — in the outside world was the same place he had felt free while in prison: the basketball court.

“In Sing Sing Prison, I played basketball all day, and it helped me stay in good shape, but, in that moment when I was playing basketball, it took a lot of stress away from me,” Mr. Peets explained. “That was the only time I felt like I was a little free and not so in my mind about all the stuff I was dealing with.”

Mr. Peets said some of his earliest memories are learning to play basketball with his father on the court near his father’s home in the Dominican Republic, where Mr. Peets grew up. Later, he passed on the lesson to his younger brother Kendall Beltre, coaching him in both basketball and baseball. Shortly after Mr. Peets’ release, he and Mr. Beltre reunited on the court.

“I felt the joy,” said Mr. Beltre. “I felt like I went back to when I was 14 years old [before Mr. Peets was arrested]. I went back to a feeling of being so happy, like I was a big kid, you know? Like wow my big brother’s out here, I almost couldn’t believe it.”

Mr. Beltre had dreams of playing Major League Baseball as a teen and was on track for a professional career, but the devastation and pain of Mr. Peets’ wrongful incarceration weighed on him. Without his brother, whom he described as his “biggest supporter,” he lost the motivation and passion to keep up his dream. But Mr. Beltre never lost hope that his brother would one day be proven innocent and be freed.

Finally Exonerated

That day finally came on May 9, 2023, when Mr. Peets’ case was dismissed and sealed in Bronx County Supreme Court, officially exonerating him. Mr. Peets’ daughter Johanil was there to celebrate the occasion.

“I cannot get that time back, I’ll never be 26 again, I never got to make those memories with my kids,” Mr. Peets said. “But I always had hope because I knew I was innocent, that I was not there that night. So I always knew I was going home in my heart.”

Immediately after his exoneration, Mr. Peets shared sandwiches with his daughter and legal team, in the nearby Joyce Kilmer Park, which overlooks the Bronx courthouse where Mr. Peets’ was arraigned. And though he was overjoyed, it wasn’t until days later that “it hit me really good,” he said.

“A couple days after my case was dismissed, I was walking and suddenly felt like the trees looked different and the sun looked different. I had this feeling like, ‘Wow, why does everything look different today?’” he recalled. “And it was because I didn’t have this fear in my head anymore.”

Now Mr. Peets is ready for his next chapter: a new home, the first he’ll be living in without a family member or a partner. After 26 years of wrongful incarceration, he said he can’t wait to have a space to call his own.

“I feel so relaxed, like a totally new person and I can do whatever I want to,” he told the Innocence Project on his way to have paella with his daughter in Manhattan. Mr. Peets waited almost 27 years to enjoy this simple pleasure — the pleasure of being free to go where he wants when he wants.

 “I’m still feeling excited every day, I’m at the gym, I’m dancing, I’m a happy guy. I’m finally feeling like I’m myself again, little by little,” he said.

(Aug. 7, 2023 — Austin, TX) Rosa Jimenez was exonerated today after the Travis County District Attorney moved to dismiss a 2003 murder charge against her, based on testimony from leading pediatric airway experts that affirmed the death at the center of the case was a tragic accident and not murder. 

Ms. Jimenez, who has always maintained her innocence, was convicted of murder after a 21-month-old child she was babysitting choked on paper towels and suffered a severe brain injury due to oxygen deprivation. He passed away three months later.

Prior to today’s dismissal, Ms. Jimenez was released from prison in 2021 after Judge Karen Sage of the 299th Criminal District Court in Austin, Texas recommended that Ms. Jimenez’s habeas petition be granted, finding that, “There was no crime committed here … Ms. Jimenez is innocent.” The decision came after the Travis County District Attorney’s Office conducted an in-depth review of the evidence through its trial division, special victims unit, and conviction integrity unit. The evidence included reports and testimony of numerous pediatric airway experts who unanimously concluded that the choking incident was the result of a tragic accident. At Ms. Jimenez’s original trial, the State presented faulty testimony stating it would have been physically impossible for the child to have accidentally choked. In May 2023, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned her 2005 conviction, ruling that the State had used false and misleading testimony to obtain her conviction. Support for Ms. Jimenez’s innocence has been widespread, particularly among Travis County state legislators. Over the years, four Texas judges who have reviewed her case in federal and state courts have all concluded that Ms. Jimenez is likely innocent and the child’s death was an accident.

“Rosa was the mom to a one-year-old girl and seven months pregnant when this ordeal began. She was forced to give birth to her son in jail, shackled, while awaiting trial. For the past 20 years, she has fought for this day, her freedom, and to be reunited with her children.” said Vanessa Potkin, director of special litigation and Ms. Jimenez’s attorney. “Her wrongful conviction was not grounded in medical science, but faulty medical assumptions that turned a tragedy into a crime — with her own attorney doing virtually nothing to defend her. I wish we could say that what happened to Rosa was an isolated occurrence, but we have a real, pervasive problem in our country when it comes to how the criminal legal system treats the caregivers of children who are hurt or die. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent caregivers and parents in prison today based on faulty, unscientific medical testimony misclassifying accidents or illness as abuse.”   

A decade into her incarceration at 33 years old, Ms. Jimenez was diagnosed with kidney disease, which progressed to end-stage during her wrongful incarceration. Months after her release in 2021, she began dialysis and is now in need of a life-saving kidney transplant. “Just when Rosa can finally close the chapter on her 20-year fight to prove her innocence, she has to take on a new battle — the fight for her life,”  Ms. Potkin said. Ms. Jimenez is being evaluated by Weill Cornell hospital for a kidney transplant and is hoping to find a living donor. 

Ms. Jimenez’s case has garnered attention from local and national leaders, including San Antonio Spurs Head Coach Gregg Popovich. “I’ve been following Rosa’s case since she was released two years ago and moved to San Antonio,” Coach Popovich said. “It’s heartbreaking — a tragic miscarriage of justice. DA Garza and his team deserve great credit for helping the Innocence Project establish Rosa’s innocence with new scientific evidence. Rosa is just 41, endured nearly 20 years wrongly incarcerated, and desperately needs a live donor so she can get a kidney transplant. Please check out the micro site Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York has established for kidney donors Kidney4Rosa.com. Help save her life.”

A Crime That Never Occurred

In January 2003, Ms. Jimenez was caring for her 1-year-old daughter Brenda and the 21-month-old year-old boy, whom she regularly babysat, when the toddler approached her choking. She immediately tried to remove the blockage, but, when she was unable to do so, she rushed to a neighbor’s house for help and they called 911. The child was resuscitated by paramedics, but the lack of oxygen resulted in severe brain damage, and he died three months later. 

After the accident, Ms. Jimenez, who was pregnant with her second child and did not speak much English, was questioned for over five hours by an allegedly bilingual police officer whom Ms. Jimenez described as barely able to speak Spanish. While trained interpreters are provided at trials, an interpreter is not constitutionally guaranteed during a law enforcement interrogation. Although Ms. Jimenez had difficulty understanding the officers, she consistently maintained her innocence and repeatedly explained that the child had accidentally choked. Ms. Jimenez, who regularly cared for children in her community, had no criminal record, and there was no history or evidence of abuse in the child’s death. Despite this, she was arrested and charged later that night. Ms. Jimenez’s situation is not uncommon among wrongly convicted women. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 40% of female exoneres were wrongly convicted of harming children or other loved ones in their care.

The Danger of Faulty Medical Evidence

At trial, the State relied on faulty medical testimony contending that it was impossible for the toddler to have accidentally choked on the paper towels, which he’d put in his own mouth, and that Ms. Jimenez must have forced them into his mouth. Ms. Jimenez’s appointed attorney never presented any credible expert witnesses to rebut the State’s faulty claims, and she was convicted and sentenced to 99 years in prison.

After the Innocence Project took on Ms. Jimenez as a client, her lawyers sought out top medical airway experts to evaluate the case evidence. Four top pediatric airways specialists from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and Stanford University Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital independently reviewed the case and issued a consensus report concluding that all the medical evidence indicated that the child accidentally choked, and that Ms. Jimenez had been wrongly convicted of a crime that never occurred.

Nearly 71% of female exonerees were convicted of crimes that never took place. As with Ms. Jimenez, such “crimes” include incidents later determined to be accidents according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

A Woefully Inadequate Defense

At her 2005 trial, Ms. Jimenez’s court-appointed attorney failed to present a meaningful defense in response to the State’s unfounded medical testimony. The principal issue addressed at trial was whether this was an accidental choking. Ms. Jimenez’s trial counsel failed to present qualified experts to counter the State’s false testimony that it was impossible for this to have been an accident. 

Ms. Jimenez’s attorney called only one expert who was fully discredited on cross-examination, who went on an explosive and harmful rant, and, at one point, yelled expletives at the prosecution. A state court habeas judge in 2010 who first recommended that Ms. Jimenez receive a new trial noted that in his “30 years as a licensed attorney, [and] 20 years in the judiciary, [he had] never seen such unprofessional and biased conduct from any witness, much less a purported expert,” adding that the expert had left Ms. Jimenez’s case in greater jeopardy than before he testified.  

In September 2018, a federal district court also ruled that Ms. Jimenez’s conviction should be vacated because she was denied her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.  That ruling was under appeal by the Texas Attorney General’s office, and, at that time, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office initiated a review of the new medical evidence.  

“As prosecutors, we have an obligation to ensure the integrity of convictions and to seek justice,“ said Travis County District Attorney José Garza. “In the case against Rosa Jimenez, it is clear that false medical testimony was used to obtain her conviction, and without that testimony under the law, she would not have been convicted. Dismissing Ms. Jimenez’s case is the right thing to do.”Our hearts also continue to break for the Gutierrez family. In this case, our criminal justice system failed them, and it also failed Rosa Jimenez.  Our hope is that by our actions today, by exposing the truth that Ms. Jimenez did not commit the crime for which she was accused, we can give some sense of closure and peace to both families.”

(Aug. 7, 2023 — Austin, TX) Rosa Jimenez was exonerated today after the Travis County District Attorney moved to dismiss a 2003 murder charge against her, based on testimony from leading pediatric airway experts that affirmed the death at the center of the case was a tragic accident and not murder. 

Ms. Jimenez, who has always maintained her innocence, was convicted of murder after a 21-month-old child she was babysitting choked on paper towels and suffered a severe brain injury due to oxygen deprivation. He passed away three months later.

Prior to today’s dismissal, Ms. Jimenez was released from prison in 2021 after Judge Karen Sage of the 299th Criminal District Court in Austin, Texas recommended that Ms. Jimenez’s habeas petition be granted, finding that, “There was no crime committed here … Ms. Jimenez is innocent.” The decision came after the Travis County District Attorney’s Office conducted an in-depth review of the evidence through its trial division, special victims unit, and conviction integrity unit. The evidence included reports and testimony of numerous pediatric airway experts who unanimously concluded that the choking incident was the result of a tragic accident. At Ms. Jimenez’s original trial, the State presented faulty testimony stating it would have been physically impossible for the child to have accidentally choked. In May 2023, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned her 2005 conviction, ruling that the State had used false and misleading testimony to obtain her conviction. Support for Ms. Jimenez’s innocence has been widespread, particularly among Travis County state legislators. Over the years, four Texas judges who have reviewed her case in federal and state courts have all concluded that Ms. Jimenez is likely innocent and the child’s death was an accident.

“Rosa was the mom to a one-year-old girl and seven months pregnant when this ordeal began. She was forced to give birth to her son in jail, shackled, while awaiting trial. For the past 20 years, she has fought for this day, her freedom, and to be reunited with her children.” said Vanessa Potkin, director of special litigation and Ms. Jimenez’s attorney. “Her wrongful conviction was not grounded in medical science, but faulty medical assumptions that turned a tragedy into a crime — with her own attorney doing virtually nothing to defend her. I wish we could say that what happened to Rosa was an isolated occurrence, but we have a real, pervasive problem in our country when it comes to how the criminal legal system treats the caregivers of children who are hurt or die. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent caregivers and parents in prison today based on faulty, unscientific medical testimony misclassifying accidents or illness as abuse.”   

A decade into her incarceration at 33 years old, Ms. Jimenez was diagnosed with kidney disease, which progressed to end-stage during her wrongful incarceration. Months after her release in 2021, she began dialysis and is now in need of a life-saving kidney transplant. “Just when Rosa can finally close the chapter on her 20-year fight to prove her innocence, she has to take on a new battle — the fight for her life,”  Ms. Potkin said. Ms. Jimenez is being evaluated by Weill Cornell hospital for a kidney transplant and is hoping to find a living donor. 

Ms. Jimenez’s case has garnered attention from local and national leaders, including San Antonio Spurs Head Coach Gregg Popovich. “I’ve been following Rosa’s case since she was released two years ago and moved to San Antonio,” Coach Popovich said. “It’s heartbreaking — a tragic miscarriage of justice. DA Garza and his team deserve great credit for helping the Innocence Project establish Rosa’s innocence with new scientific evidence. Rosa is just 41, endured nearly 20 years wrongly incarcerated, and desperately needs a live donor so she can get a kidney transplant. Please check out the micro site Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York has established for kidney donors Kidney4Rosa.com. Help save her life.”

A Crime That Never Occurred

In January 2003, Ms. Jimenez was caring for her 1-year-old daughter Brenda and the 21-month-old year-old boy, whom she regularly babysat, when the toddler approached her choking. She immediately tried to remove the blockage, but, when she was unable to do so, she rushed to a neighbor’s house for help and they called 911. The child was resuscitated by paramedics, but the lack of oxygen resulted in severe brain damage, and he died three months later. 

After the accident, Ms. Jimenez, who was pregnant with her second child and did not speak much English, was questioned for over five hours by an allegedly bilingual police officer whom Ms. Jimenez described as barely able to speak Spanish. While trained interpreters are provided at trials, an interpreter is not constitutionally guaranteed during a law enforcement interrogation. Although Ms. Jimenez had difficulty understanding the officers, she consistently maintained her innocence and repeatedly explained that the child had accidentally choked. Ms. Jimenez, who regularly cared for children in her community, had no criminal record, and there was no history or evidence of abuse in the child’s death. Despite this, she was arrested and charged later that night. Ms. Jimenez’s situation is not uncommon among wrongly convicted women. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 40% of female exoneres were wrongly convicted of harming children or other loved ones in their care.

The Danger of Faulty Medical Evidence

At trial, the State relied on faulty medical testimony contending that it was impossible for the toddler to have accidentally choked on the paper towels, which he’d put in his own mouth, and that Ms. Jimenez must have forced them into his mouth. Ms. Jimenez’s appointed attorney never presented any credible expert witnesses to rebut the State’s faulty claims, and she was convicted and sentenced to 99 years in prison.

After the Innocence Project took on Ms. Jimenez as a client, her lawyers sought out top medical airway experts to evaluate the case evidence. Four top pediatric airways specialists from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and Stanford University Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital independently reviewed the case and issued a consensus report concluding that all the medical evidence indicated that the child accidentally choked, and that Ms. Jimenez had been wrongly convicted of a crime that never occurred.

Nearly 71% of female exonerees were convicted of crimes that never took place. As with Ms. Jimenez, such “crimes” include incidents later determined to be accidents according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

A Woefully Inadequate Defense

At her 2005 trial, Ms. Jimenez’s court-appointed attorney failed to present a meaningful defense in response to the State’s unfounded medical testimony. The principal issue addressed at trial was whether this was an accidental choking. Ms. Jimenez’s trial counsel failed to present qualified experts to counter the State’s false testimony that it was impossible for this to have been an accident. 

Ms. Jimenez’s attorney called only one expert who was fully discredited on cross-examination, who went on an explosive and harmful rant, and, at one point, yelled expletives at the prosecution. A state court habeas judge in 2010 who first recommended that Ms. Jimenez receive a new trial noted that in his “30 years as a licensed attorney, [and] 20 years in the judiciary, [he had] never seen such unprofessional and biased conduct from any witness, much less a purported expert,” adding that the expert had left Ms. Jimenez’s case in greater jeopardy than before he testified.  

In September 2018, a federal district court also ruled that Ms. Jimenez’s conviction should be vacated because she was denied her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.  That ruling was under appeal by the Texas Attorney General’s office, and, at that time, the Travis County District Attorney’s Office initiated a review of the new medical evidence.  

“As prosecutors, we have an obligation to ensure the integrity of convictions and to seek justice,“ said Travis County District Attorney José Garza. “In the case against Rosa Jimenez, it is clear that false medical testimony was used to obtain her conviction, and without that testimony under the law, she would not have been convicted. Dismissing Ms. Jimenez’s case is the right thing to do.”Our hearts also continue to break for the Gutierrez family. In this case, our criminal justice system failed them, and it also failed Rosa Jimenez.  Our hope is that by our actions today, by exposing the truth that Ms. Jimenez did not commit the crime for which she was accused, we can give some sense of closure and peace to both families.”

July is #DisabilityPrideMonth — a time to celebrate, empower, and raise awareness about the achievements, diversity, and rights of people with disabilities. 

Amid this commemoration, it’s crucial to recognize how disability intersects with social justice. At the Innocence Project, we know that people with disabilities can be tragically ensnared in the criminal justice system. Individuals with disabilities face unique challenges — including communication barriers, negative stereotypes, and inadequate accommodations — that can hinder their ability to effectively participate in the legal process and can make them particularly vulnerable to wrongful conviction, incarceration, and death sentences. 

The cases of Pervis Payne, Sandra Hemme, and Robert Roberson underscore the challenges that people with disabilities face in the criminal justice system. Their stories have compelled us to raise awareness about the unique hurdles that individuals with disabilities encounter during the legal process, which include: 

1. Communication barriers

Some disabilities, such as speech or hearing impairments, can hinder effective communication with law enforcement and legal professionals, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Additionally, some individuals with disabilities may not fully understand their rights or the legal process when communicated, making it difficult for them to navigate their defense effectively.

2. Misinterpretation of behavior

Disabilities like autism or intellectual disabilities can result in behaviors that may be misinterpreted by law enforcement as deceitful, non-compliant, or otherwise inculpatory, leading to prejudiced assumptions about their guilt.

People with autism may not process or display emotion in the same way as neurotypical people. For example, Robert Roberson is a father with autism who has spent 20 years on death row in Texas for a crime that never occurred. In 2002, Mr. Roberson’s two-year-old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff did not know Mr. Roberson had autism and judged his response to his daughter’s grave condition as lacking emotion. Additionally, law enforcement inferred guilt from Mr. Roberson’s emotional response to his daughter’s death because it was different from what they believed to be a normal grief response. Mr. Roberson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death.

3. Suggestibility

People with certain disabilities may be more susceptible to suggestion during police interrogations, leading them to make false confessions or statements. A National Registry of Exonerations report found that, from 1989 to 2020, 70% of people who falsely confessed and were exonerated had a mental illness or intellectual disability. 

4. Limited access to legal representation

People with disabilities may face challenges in finding and retaining appropriate legal representation, which can impact the quality of their defense.

5. Prejudice and bias

Disabled individuals can be subject to societal prejudice, leading to unfair treatment and bias from judges, jurors, or other legal professionals. Jurors and witnesses might unconsciously rely on stereotypes and misconceptions about people with disabilities, influencing their perception of the defendant’s guilt or innocence

Pervis Payne has maintained his innocence for more than three decades on death row for murder. Because of his disability, Mr. Payne was not able to fully participate in his defense and was not a strong witness on his own behalf. Additionally, the prosecution’s case against him exploited his intellectual disability and relied on racist stereotypes of Black men to paint a portrait of Mr. Payne as a dangerous and hypersexualized drug user. In 2021, Mr. Payne was officially removed from death row following the Shelby County district attorney’s concession that he is a person with an intellectual disability and therefore cannot be executed.

6. Inadequate accommodations

The criminal justice system might not always provide the necessary accommodations, such as accessible facilities, sign language interpreters, or assistive technologies, to ensure a fair trial for people with disabilities.

“They said I was an animal that would spend the rest of my life in prison,” Kenneth Hovland recalled of the beginning of his wrongful incarceration. Mr. Hovland’s life was profoundly altered in 1982 when he was wrongfully convicted of murder in Snohomish County, Washington. At the age of 23, with two young children, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

 “From that time on, I started focusing on bettering myself, and not becoming what corrections wanted me to be … They wanted me to be the person that the media portrays us to be. And that’s not who I am,” he said. So Mr. Hovland enrolled in as many programs to “better” himself as he could. To stay positive, he was constantly trying to learn new things, even beyond the prison’s programs — which is how he discovered his passion for jewelry-making.

“I learned about jewelry when I was on the inside, first doing belt buckles and then I met individuals in there that had been doing jewelry for a number of years,” said Mr. Hovland. “And I learned from them, just watching and practicing and studying, reading what I could, doing the different techniques and still learning.”

Mr. Hovland said he has always been a creative person who enjoys working with his hands, so jewelry-making allowed him to feel like himself again.

“I’m generally an easygoing, loving person, real gentle. And [jewelry-making] takes away from the hardness that prison created … It helped a lot for therapy and just seeing the beauty in life,” he said.

Mr. Hovland ultimately spent 40 years wrongly convicted based on the use of flawed forensic methods — namely, microscopic hair comparison, fiber evidence and bite mark evidence, which have led to the wrongful convictions of numerous innocent individuals. However, with the help of the Washington Innocence Project, Mr. Hovland’s case gained momentum as they presented prosecutors with compelling evidence that discredited these unreliable techniques. 

(Austin, Texas, Wednesday, June 28, 2023) Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) accepted the 21st Judicial District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from Rodney Reed’s July 2021 evidentiary hearing, despite Mr. Reed’s claim that the judge abandoned his duty to be a neutral, independent fact finder by copy-and-pasting the State’s proposed order with only minor changes. The CCA also rejected Mr. Reed’s claim that prosecutors at his 1998 trial illegally suppressed evidence that could have exonerated him.

Jane Pucher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project, and one of Mr. Reed’s attorneys made the following statement:

“For 23 years, Texas illegally hid evidence that could have exonerated Rodney Reed. He is an innocent man. Texans should be outraged that prosecutorial misconduct is going unchecked and the State is being given a license to cheat – even if it means sending an innocent man to his death.

“Prosecutors at Mr. Reed’s 1998 trial illegally concealed statements from Stacey Stites’s co-workers showing that Mr. Reed and Ms. Stites knew each other and were romantically involved. The suppressed evidence was crucial because it demonstrated that the key factual theory of the State’s capital murder case against Mr. Reed – that he had to have kidnapped Ms. Stites because the two were strangers – was patently false. The State also illegally suppressed statements from Ms. Stites’s neighbors about loud domestic violence arguments between Ms. Stites and her fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, a police officer who was the prime suspect in her murder for nearly a year. This evidence was critical because it undercut the prosecution’s argument that Ms. Stites and Mr. Fennell were a happy couple looking forward to their wedding.

“Furthermore, Judge Langley rubber stamped the State’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including many obvious factual misrepresentations and misrepresentations of law. The abdication of the judge’s duty to be an unbiased, deliberative, independent fact finder cannot be tolerated, especially when an innocent man’s life is at stake. The Texas Legislature should take a serious look at the practice of the courts adopting the State’s proposed orders almost verbatim, without a thoughtful and considered process.

“In 2019, when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Rodney Reed’s execution to allow the courts to consider his Brady, false testimony, and actual innocence claims, the CCA entrusted Judge Langley with making impartial findings and independent assessments of witnesses’ credibility, supported by the evidence. That did not happen. It is not plausible that Judge Langley could find every witness for the State to be credible and every witness called by Mr. Reed to be not credible.

“At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Reed presented new, overwhelming evidence of his innocence. For example, at least eight witnesses, including Stacey Stites’s co-workers, friends, and family, and a former member of law enforcement, testified at the evidentiary hearing that Ms. Stites and Mr. Reed knew each other and were romantically involved at the time of her death. This testimony disproved the State’s theory at trial that Mr. Reed and Ms. Stites were strangers, she never would have associated with him, and therefore he must have kidnapped and sexually assaulted her.

“At least three witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that Jimmy Fennell, Ms. Stites’s fiancé, knew Ms. Stites was having an affair with a Black man and therefore had a motive to murder her. Two other witnesses testified that Mr. Fennell confessed to killing Ms. Stites. If this evidence had been presented at trial, it would have undercut the image of Mr. Fennell as a grieving fiancé, shown that Mr. Fennell had a motive to kill Ms. Stites, and the jury would not have convicted Mr. Reed.

“In this case, the State hid evidence pointing to Mr. Reed’s innocence for more than two decades. Mr. Reed’s conviction and death sentence violates the most central tenets of our Constitution and cannot stand. We will continue to fight for Mr. Reed’s freedom and bring him home to his family.”

— Jane Pucher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project, and one of Mr. Reed’s attorneys
— June 28, 2023

CCA Orders Denying Habeas Relief can be viewed here.

Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley — known as the West Memphis Three — have been trying to clear their names for 30 years. In 1993, Mr. Misskelley, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Echols (16, 17, and 18, respectively, at the time) were arrested for the murders of three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, Arkansas, in 1993. 

Although no physical evidence or motive tied them to the crime, the teens were all convicted. Both Mr. Misskelley and Mr. Baldwin were given life sentences, while Mr. Echols, who the prosecution argued had led the attack, was sentenced to death.

In the three decades since the West Memphis Three were convicted, DNA technology has rapidly evolved. In 2007, DNA testing excluded the three from all of the crime scene evidence tested and detected DNA of a man, who could not be identified at the time. Today, advances in DNA technology mean that DNA that could not previously be recovered from evidence — including shoelaces used to bind the children — can now be tested and could lead to the identification of the person who actually committed this crime.

However, last year, a Crittenden County judge denied Mr. Echols’ request for new DNA testing of the evidence because he is no longer in prison. While some other states’ laws only allow incarcerated people to access post-conviction DNA testing, Arkansas’ statute does not limit access to testing to those who are currently incarcerated. Mr. Echols has now taken his appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Preventing people from seeking DNA testing after their release from prison impedes justice and would have prevented the exoneration of several wrongly convicted people like Chris Tapp, Tyrone Day, Marvin Anderson, and Eddie Lowery, whose names were all cleared by DNA testing years after they were released. Justice for the victims in this case and the West Memphis Three should not be denied simply because they are no longer incarcerated. They should not be penalized and robbed of the opportunity to clear their names because they are free.

That is why, on June 2, the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief — a “friend of the court” brief offering our expertise based on our experience with DNA testing and innocence claims — to the Arkansas Supreme Court, supporting Mr. Echols’ appeal for new DNA testing of the evidence in his case.

Richard Glossip’s case is a harrowing example of how the justice system can fail an innocent person. Mr. Glossip has been on death row in Oklahoma for 25 years for “masterminding” the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese, even though it is undisputed that a man named Justin Sneed actually committed the crime. 

Mr. Glossip had no criminal history and was only implicated in the crime after detectives suggested his name to Mr. Sneed six times. Mr. Glossip’s trial was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, a leading cause of wrongful conviction. In an extraordinary step, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has conceded errors in Mr. Glossip’s case and asked the court to overturn his conviction, and now supports his clemency and opposes his execution. 

Mr. Glossip most recently had an execution date set for May 18, 2023, until the U.S. Supreme Court granted him a stay of execution on May 5, just as Mr. Glossip was saying in-person goodbyes to his loved ones. Mr. Glossip has faced execution nine times — he came so close to being executed three of those times that he was even served his last meal. 

“I yelled out, ‘you’re kidding!’ at first,” Mr. Glossip told CNN. “I want to continue to fight. I want to continue to get my message out to people.”

Attorney General Drummond has asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to throw out not just Mr. Glossip’s death sentence, but his entire conviction because the trial that resulted in his death sentence was unfair. However, the court refused, citing procedural restrictions.

On April 26, 2023, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board split 2-2 on whether to grant Mr. Glossip clemency, resulting in a denial of relief. The board’s fifth member was recused because his wife was the lead prosecutor in Mr. Glossip’s case; no unconflicted replacement was seated.  In order for the Governor to grant clemency under Oklahoma law, it must be voted for by a majority of the clemency board. This even split resulted in the denial of clemency.

The temporary stay was granted to allow the Supreme Court time to review two petitions from Mr. Glossip’s legal team that are currently pending before it. On June 5, the Innocence Project also filed an amicus brief to the high court — which has the power to prevent his wrongful death execution.

The Innocence Project brief states that Mr. Glossip’s case “implicates many of the hallmarks of a wrongful conviction — including an acknowledgement by the State itself that it committed prosecutorial misconduct that renders Richard Glossip’s capital conviction fundamentally unreliable.” The brief, which is authored by Seth Waxman, the former U.S. Solicitor General appointed by William J. Clinton, further states:

Over more than 30 years of experience, the Innocence Project has found that prosecutorial doubt about guilt or the reliability of a conviction is a substantial indicator of a wrongful conviction. And when, as here, the State expresses not merely doubt, but a firm conviction that a capital conviction was “obtained with the benefit of material misstatements to the jury by the State’s key witness,” [quoting A.G. Drummond], it is virtually unthinkable that the conviction could be allowed to stand.

So, Mr. Glossip, who is represented by Don Knight, Amy Knight, John Mills, and Joe Perkovich remains on death row for a crime he didn’t commit.

Here’s what you should know about Mr. Glossip’s case:

1. Mr. Glossip’s conviction is based almost entirely on false statements made by Justin Sneed, who has since recanted his testimony and admitted to lying about Mr. Glossip’s involvement in the murder.

Originally, Mr. Sneed admitted to the crime and implicated Mr. Glossip as his accomplice in exchange for a plea deal that spared him the death penalty.

When I was just starting out as a public defender, I got the opportunity to assist on a case that was scheduled for trial. Our client, who was out on bail, made it clear that he was innocent. If convicted after trial, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence involving significant prison time. 

We worked incredibly long hours — researching the law, conducting investigations, and consulting with our client — and we developed a trial strategy that we believed could vindicate him.  

On the morning that jury selection was scheduled to begin, we got an offer: the prosecutor announced that if our client pleaded guilty, he could be free within a year. 

I vividly remember standing in the hallway of the criminal court watching our client struggle with this offer. He said he was innocent — why should he admit to something he didn’t do and go to jail? We were ready to go to trial — what was all of that work for? If we believed he was innocent, why would we urge him to plead guilty? 

But my experienced colleagues were clear-eyed. They understood — and explained — the enormous risk that the trial represented, including the fact that he was a young Black man whose case would be decided by an overwhelmingly white jury. 

Our client pleaded guilty. 

The Sixth Amendment enshrines the right to trial for anyone accused of a crime. Yet, in America today, less than 3% of criminal cases ever make it to trial. 

A lot of factors drive that statistic, including the trial penalty: the practice of offering more lenient sentences in exchange for a guilty plea before trial and promising (and imposing) severe sentences after a conviction at trial. Confronted with an impossible choice — fighting for their innocence but often risking decades in prison or admitting to something they didn’t do but salvaging their family and future — innocent people can and do plead guilty. 

Take Tyrone Day, a client of the Innocence Project and Innocence Project of Texas, who was exonerated last week. He was wrongly convicted of a 1989 sexual assault in Dallas. On the advice of his attorney and under threat of a 99-year prison sentence, he agreed to plead guilty after his attorney incorrectly told him that he would be eligible for parole after serving four years. Mr. Day spent nearly 26 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit as a result of that plea deal.

Innocence Project re-entry coach Rodney Roberts, who was also wrongfully convicted as a result of a plea deal, described the experience as, “saving and sabotaging [myself] at the same time.”

Of the more than 3,300 people exonerated since 1989, one in four (25%) pleaded guilty. And more than 60% were people of color.

How Did We Get Here?

Tough-on-crime rhetoric has resulted in federal and state legislation that imposes draconian mandatory minimum sentences. These laws prevent judges from considering mitigating factors — like trauma and abuse — and imposing individualized sentences. Instead, prosecutors can unilaterally decide to file charges that require high sentences and unilaterally decide if, when, and how such charges or sentences may be reduced in plea negotiations.

Add to the mix the very rational fear of pretrial detention, which serves as an additional thumb on the scale in favor of taking a plea deal even in cases of innocence and cases in which the stakes are lower because the potential charges are not as serious. For example, when faced with the prospect of a stint in New York City’s notoriously violent jail Rikers Island, Jason Serrano pleaded guilty despite being innocent. Police body camera footage showed officers planting drugs in his car.

None of this is good for justice. A guilty plea short-circuits the process (from discovery to investigation to cross-examination) that can otherwise expose coercion, misconduct, and actual innocence. It also prevents meaningful accountability.

May is Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Heritage Month — a time to recognize and celebrate the historical and cultural contributions of the AAPI community.  In honor of this month, we’re highlighting the stories of four wrongly convicted Asian American individuals who have demonstrated immense resilience and strength in the face of racism and injustice.

Asians make up just 1% of people exonerated to date, but wrongly convicted Asians may face several unique challenges, from overt racism to language barriers to lack of community support.

For example, the “model minority” myth — the harmful stereotype that all AAPI people demonstrate high academic and economic achievement — may lead people to incorrectly believe that AAPI people don’t face the same social barriers as other minorities. Those who do not fit the “positive” stereotype of the model minority — including incarcerated Asian people and Asian exonerees — are often overlooked, and their needs ignored. Asian American legal scholar Robert S. Chang writes that “the portrayal of Asian Americans as successful permits the general public, government officials, and the judiciary to ignore or marginalize the contemporary needs of Asian Americans.” 

Asian American exonerees in particular often receive little assistance from the government to facilitate reentry, and often lack support from the Asian American community when assimilating back into society. 

The cases of Chol Soo Lee, Kin-Jin “David” Wong, Frances Choy, and Han Tak Lee highlight some of the unique challenges that wrongly convicted Asian Americans experience.

Chol Soo Lee

Born in South Korea, Chol Soo Lee emigrated to San Francisco at the age of 12. In 1973, at the age of 21, he was arrested for the murder of Yip Yee Tak. 

Mr. Lee did not match the physical descriptions of Mr. Tak’s shooter, but three out of six white eyewitnesses identified him as the gunman in a police lineup. Mr. Lee was convicted in 1974 after a trial in which prosecutors did not turn over key pieces of evidence to the defense, and was sentenced to life without parole.

Six months into his sentence, Mr. Lee was in a prison yard altercation which resulted in the death of another incarcerated man named Morrison Needham. Mr. Lee said he had been acting in self-defense, but was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He became the first Asian American on death row in San Quentin.

His case garnered public attention after Korean American journalist K.W. Lee penned over 120 articles questioning his 1974 conviction and bolstering the case for his innocence. K.W.’s writing inspired members of the Korean American community to create the Free Chol Soo Lee Defense Committee, which raised more than $120,000 to support Chol Soo’s appeal of his initial murder conviction.

In February 1979, a Sacramento judge overturned the conviction, ruling that prosecutors had wrongly withheld evidence from the defense. San Francisco prosecutors retried the case, but with the help of his defense attorney, Chol Soo was acquitted by a new jury in 1982. The following year, his conviction for Mr. Needham’s murder was overturned on the grounds of improper jury instruction and hearsay testimony.

After 10 years of incarceration, he was released that August. Chol Soo died in 2014 in San Francisco. The movement to free him, which captured the attention of Asian Americans around the country, is the subject of the documentary Free Chol Soo Lee, which premiered on PBS last month.

Han Tak Lee

Han Tak Lee was a Korean American man who was wrongly convicted of murder and arson in the death of his eldest daughter Ji Yun Lee. In July 1989, a fire erupted in a cabin Han Tak was sharing with his daughter at a religious retreat in Pennsylvania, killing the 20-year-old Ji Yun. Investigators concluded that the fire was deliberately set, and police arrested Han Tak, citing the inconsistent statements they said he made about his attempts to rescue his daughter.  

At Han Tak’s trial, the prosecution called three witnesses, who testified that the fire could only have been caused by the intentional use of accelerants and that the chemical analysis showed the presence of fuel oil, although there was no credible scientific evidence of arson. Han Tak was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole. After his arrest, members of the Korean American community in New York formed the Free Han Tak Lee Committee, which raised money to help pay his legal fees.

Han Tak spent nearly 25 years incarcerated, where he told NBC News he experienced racial discrimination. He kept fighting to clear his name and in 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted him a new trial. With the assistance of the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, Han Tak was finally exonerated in December 2015.

In 2016, Han Tak told reporters that the lack of support he felt from his community had made rebuilding his life after more than two decades of wrongful incarceration challenging, but said that he wanted to be more optimistic. In an interview with NBC, Han Tak said he relishes the freedom and the “fresh air” he now enjoys in his sunset years.

Frances Choy

Chinese American Frances Choy was only 17 when she was charged with murder and arson after a house fire in her Massachusetts home killed her parents Jimmy and Anne Choy. Prosecutors alleged that Frances and her nephew, then-16-year-old Kenneth Choy, had intentionally started the fire to murder her parents. Frances was tried three times for the crime, with the first two trials ending in hung juries and the third trial, in 2011, ending in her conviction and a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Kenneth was charged with murder and spent five years in jail awaiting trial until a jury acquitted him in 2008. After being granted immunity, he testified for the prosecution, placing the blame on Frances.

In 2015, the prosecution disclosed evidence that showed that the trial prosecutors had exchanged numerous emails that made racist and sexually discriminatory remarks about Frances, members of her family, and Asians in general. After discovering this, Frances’ attorney John J. Barter spent nearly five years trying to get access to all of the emails with the help of the Boston College Innocence Program. In the spring of 2019, hundreds of pages of emails and other documents were finally released.

“This may be the first case in the U.S. where a murder conviction has been thrown out because of racism on the part of prosecutors,” Mr. Barter told WBUR News.

In 2020, Frances’ attorneys filed a motion seeking her release on bail after uncovering numerous problems in her third trial, including evidence that Kenneth had set the fire and then blamed Frances. The judge then released Frances from prison in April, and she was finally exonerated in September 2020.

“Nothing can erase the pain of losing my parents and how they suffered. I miss them every day. Even in prison I tried to live my life in a way that honored them,” Frances, now 34, said in a statement provided by her lawyers. “I’m relieved that the truth has been revealed and to have my life back beyond prison walls.”

According to her lawyers, Frances is one of the few women of color to be exonerated in Massachusetts.